alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANK VINCI *v.*ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON

(14142)

O’Connell, Landau and Hennessy, Js.

Argued January 19

decision released February 13, 1996

*928
      *Peter M. Sipples,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Michael A. Zizka,*for the appellee (named defendant).

*Anthony A. Denorfia,*for the appellee (defendant David Chevrolet, Inc.).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Steve Clarence BENKOWSKI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27628.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated, second offense, a felony; the punishment, thirty days in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All-proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment-is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Coast Distribution System, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2013,

as Amended by
Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
(the Company), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (the Annual Report), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2014

/s/ JAMES MUSBACHJames Musbach
President and Chief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1



                          Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form SB-2 No. 333-41036) pertaining to 139,250 shares of common stock issuable
upon exercise of warrants and options, (Form SB-2 No. 333-84213) pertaining to
2,790,037 shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of debt and exercise
of warrants and options, (Form S-3 No. 33-57116) pertaining to 1,083,333 shares
of common stock and 50,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of
warrants, (Form S-8 No. 33-45536) pertaining to 1,810,000 shares of common
stock, and (Form S-8 Nos. 33-45523, 333-04393, 33-63047, 333-49919 and
333-57038) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Plan, of our report dated February 22,
2002 with respect to the financial statements of SpectraScience, Inc., included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
March 27, 2002
---

|EXHIBIT 32.2                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF                             
|PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER                  
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Garth Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of AMG
Oil Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of AMG Oil Ltd. for the
period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 6, 2008

| | /s/Garth Johnson                             | 
| | -------------------------------------------- | 
| | Garth Johnson, Chief Financial
      Officer | 

---
# FILED

March 17, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF A

PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE WESTERN SECTION A T JACKSON

CYNTHIA A. PHILLIPS, PA UL ) PHILLIPS, JUDY WEBB, and ) GLENN WEBB, ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) Dyer Circuit No. 93-137 & 93-144 ) VS. ) Appeal No. 02A 01-9704-CV-00094 ) FRANCIS PEROT, ) ) Defendant/Appellant, ) ) and ) ) KELLY L. PHILLIPS, by and through ) her legal guardian and parent, ) TERESA THUR MAN, and TER ESA ) THUR MAN, I ndiv idua lly, ) ) Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) ) VS. ) ) FRANCIS CERIAC PEROT, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION
While I concur with the opinion of the major ity of the Court in this case, I respectfully submit that there is a lack of uniformity and certainty in the cases which discuss the proper ratio of additurs or remittiturs to jury verdicts . [e.g. Foster v. Amcon
International Inc. , 621S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981); Guess v. Morrey, 726 S.W.2d 906 (Tenn.App. 1986); Anderson v. Latham Trucking Co. , 728 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. 1987)]. Perhaps the best way to reconcile this case w ith other similar cases

is to place the emphasis on determining w hether or not the additur or r emittitur would result in an award not only proportionally different from the jury verdict but also substantially different in absolute terms. That is to say, verdicts of relatively small amounts of money might be granted additurs or remittiturs of greater percentages than verdicts of relatively large amounts. The verdic ts in this case were modest, so that the additurs do not substantially alter the end result.

CONCUR:

__________________________ Lanier, Sp. J.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Michael Johnson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of @Road, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004
/s/ Michael Johnson
Michael Johnson
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                     APACHE OFFSHORE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      I, G. Steven Farris, certify that the Annual Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and that
information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.

/s/ G. Steven Farris
-------------------------------------------
By:    G. Steven Farris
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
       and Chief Operating Officer of
       Apache Corporation, Managing Partner

      I, Roger B. Plank, certify that the Annual Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or Section 78o (d)) and that
information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.

/s/ Roger B. Plank
-------------------------------------------
By:    Roger B. Plank
Title: Executive Vice President
       and Chief Financial Officer of
       Apache Corporation, Managing Partner
#### Frank James SIBLEY and Bobby E. Bryant, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27932.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1956.

Harry P. Jarvis, Thos. M. Mobley, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is rape; the punishment, eight years for each appellant.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
June 22, 2004 First Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 This First Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note (the “First Amendment”) is entered into as of June 22, 2004,
between TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION (“Borrower”) and KWM INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (“Lender”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 A. Borrower has previously executed and delivered to Lender that certain Convertible Promissory Note dated December 14, 2000, in the original face amount
of $3,000,000.00 (the “Note”). Capitalized terms used in this First Amendment that are not defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Note. 
  
 B. Borrower and Lender have agreed to modify the terms of the Note, as more particularly set forth below. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which hereby are acknowledged, the parties to this First Amendment agree as follows: 
  
 1. Maturity Date. The Note hereby is modified and amended to extend the Maturity Date from January 2, 2005 until August 1, 2005. Accordingly, the term “Maturity Date” as defined in Section 1 of the
Note is hereby modified and amended to refer to August 1, 2005. The entire principal balance of the Loan together with all accrued interest as provided for in Section 2 of this First Amendment shall be paid by Borrower to Lender in a single payment
on or before August 1, 2005. 
  
 2. Warrants; Interest
Rate. Effective as of January 1, 2005, (i) Borrower shall discontinue issuing Warrants to Lender in lieu of interest as provided for in the Note, and (ii) the Loan shall accrue interest on the outstanding principal balance of the Loan at a rate
of twelve percent (12%) per annum. 
  
 3. Other Terms
Unchanged. Except as expressly modified or amended by this First Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Note remain in full force and effect. 
  
 ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON
LAW. 
  

							
	 BORROWER
	 	 LENDER

		
	 TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION
	 	 KWM INVESTMENTS, LLC

				
	 By
	 	 /s/ Kristopher S. Galvin

	 	By	 	 /s/ Dennis Weibling


	 	 	 Kristopher S. Galvin, its Executive VP
	 	 	 	 Dennis Weibling, its President
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. J. W. BATESON COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 6345.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Nov. 23, 1953.

*321Frank B. Potter, Dallas, for appellant.

Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Bateman, Donald V. Yarborough, Dallas, for appel-lees.

MARTIN, Justice.

This cause was originally filed in the Fifth Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas and has been transferred to this court by the Supreme Court in equalizing the dockets of various courts of civil appeals. The issue involves a motion to dismiss the appeal as filed by the appellees in the cause.

The record reveals that, following judgment in the trial court, a motion for a new trial was filed June 30,1952, and an amended motion was filed July 18, 1952. An order purporting to overrule such first amended motion for a new trial was entered January 5, 1953. An appeal bond was filed February 3, 1953.

Under Rule 330(j) ,1 Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the first amended motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law in 45 days — August 17, 1952. The action of the trial court in entering the order overruling such first amended motion for a new trial on January 5, 1953, was without legal effect. The appeal bond as filed on February 3, 1953, was not filed within the time required to perfect the appeal. The transcript was not filed until the 20th day of March, 1953.

Under the issues presented, the appeal must be dismissed. Bowman v. Traders & General Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 148, writ refused; Martinez v. Stephens, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 707; Eldridge v. Lake Whitney Enterprises, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 466.

1

. No-w rule 329-b.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,970,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,234,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,566,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,970,877
<SALES>                                     19,638,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,638,650
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,889,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                97,128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             448,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,300,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                   200,906
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,002,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,002,558
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-1 (Nos. 333-153062, 333-147436, and 333-121563) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-171952, 333-160403, 333-153595, 333-133001, 333-70838, and 333-49396) of Communication Intelligence Corporation and its subsidiary of our report dated March 29, 2011 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern), which appears on page F-1 of this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.











/s/ GHP Horwath, P.C.


Denver, Colorado


March 29, 2011
—AZO

Douglas , J. J. appealable. 

### See NRAP 3A(b); 

### Taylor Constr. Co., 100 Nev. at 209, 678 P.2d at 1153. Appellant seemingly seeks to challenge various post-divorce decree rulings and orders in Eighth Judicial District Court Case No. D-12- 468773-D that modified her child custody and visitation rights. While an order that finally establishes child custody is appealable, NRAP 3A(b)(7), a temporary child custody or visitation order is not. 

### See In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989) (stating that no appeal may be taken from a temporary custody order subject to periodic review). Our review of the documents before us reveals that, in the case below, the district court has not yet entered a final order resolving the parties' various motions to modify child custody and visitation, and a hearing for that purpose is scheduled to occur on October 28, 2014. As a result, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal pending in Docket No. 66063, and we therefore order that appeal dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.'

Hardesty , J.

'Although we dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 65702, we defer ruling on appellant's August 5, 2014, request that the filing fee she paid on August 4, 2014, be returned. We deny as moot all requests for relief in Docket No. 66063.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) I947A TiVreecria:iakt

### cc: Hon. Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Family Court Division Lavonne Kolender Dale E. Haley Louis C. Schneider, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### 3

if int it*Ist

age
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


National Home Health Care Corp. and Subsidiaries
Scarsdale, New York


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of National  Home Health Care Corp.  and  Subsidiaries  on Forms S-8
(Registration  Nos.  033-61315 and 333-46076 of our report dated October 3, 2003
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of National Home
Health Care Corp. and  Subsidiaries  appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2003.




/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
--------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP
Valhalla, New York
October 29, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.2



I, Richard H. Gross, certify that:





|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |    |                               | 
|-------------------- | -- | ----------------------------- | 
|Date: April 29, 2016 | By | */s/ Richard H. Gross*        | 
|                     |    | Richard H. Gross              | 
|                     |    | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|                     |    | (Principal Financial Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1536 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1536

     To provide for the disposition of the retiring Space Shuttles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

   Mr. Chaffetz (for himself, Mr. Olson, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
  Nugent, Mrs. Adams, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. 
    Jackson Lee of Texas, and Mr. Al Green of Texas) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, 
       and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on House 
   Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the disposition of the retiring Space Shuttles.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Space Shuttle Retirement Act''.

SEC. 2. SPACE SHUTTLE DISPOSITION.

    The following locations shall be home to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration's retiring Space Shuttles:
            (1) The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida 
        shall be home to the Shuttle Atlantis.
            (2) The California Science Center in Los Angeles, 
        California, shall be home to the Shuttle Enterprise.
            (3) The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven 
        F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia shall be home to the Shuttle 
        Discovery.
            (4) Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, shall be home 
        to the Shuttle Endeavour.
                                 <all>
```